back to article New driver-snooping satnav could push down UK insurance premiums

The idea has been hovering in the ether for some time, but TomTom is the first satnav firm to sign on the dotted line and bring insurance to drivers through their GPS. The Dutch company has joined up with Motaquote insurers to offer UK drivers "Fair Pay" insurance, where customers pay lower premiums because their satnav …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face

    I wonder how long it will be before someone works out how to drive the car while this is disconnected, creating the impression of someone who uses the car very infrequently.

    1. JimmyPage Silver badge

      people to realise that putting your address as your parents, or that they are the main drivers reduced premiums.

      I await with interest, the story about the first muppet that leaves the box at home, and then tries to make a claim when the car was 100 miles away .....

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I wonder how long it will take people to realise that their premiums will continue to rise, only now, when questioned, the call centre drone on the phone will blame the increases on the "mysterious and secret computer algorithm" that "analyses" your driving style and spits out a in increased premium.

  2. BlinkenLights
    Thumb Down

    Safe Driving ?

    Will it pick up on tailgating, talking/texting or generally not paying attention while driving? Safe driving is more than speed, cornering and braking*.

    * Note to article author: It's "brake suddenly" not "break suddenly", unless of course you're driving an Alfa Romeo.

    1. Jad
      Unhappy

      Having just had my car written off ...

      I can tell you that driving at the speed limit is not always safe, especially at mini roundabouts ... I think he braked before he hit me, but then again, by the time he seemed to notice me he only had about 3 meters in which to do it.

    2. BristolBachelor Gold badge

      @BlinkenLights

      Absolutely, and this bit is totally crap: "... or have to brake suddenly"

      So does that mean if a child runs out in front of me not looking, I get a lower premium for not braking suddenly, even though it means I hit them?

      Oh and I hope that TomTom have updated their maps at last. I had to turn off the stupid "you are going too fast alarm" because they had the speed limits wrong in places and it would suddenly say the limit is 30 in the middle of a 60 stretch!

      On the other hand, I have been very tempted by the devices that you fit to the car to record your jouneys to use in the event that some plonker drives into the side of you on the motorway (at least he admitted responsibility).

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It wont pick up on the people who manage to smash into your parked car in tescos car park either.

      It also wont be able to tell the difference between a relatively safe "spirited drive" in a well maintained sports car driven by a middle aged advanced police driver compared to a 17year old ragging the crap out of a never been serviced 1.2 corsa trying to impress his mates around the A roads.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "It also wont be able to tell the difference between a relatively safe "spirited drive" in a well maintained sports car driven by a middle aged advanced police driver compared to a 17year old ragging the crap out of a never been serviced 1.2 corsa trying to impress his mates around the A roads."

        Won't they? They presumably will know the age and model of car, its location, its speed.

        Maybe for their purposes there is not a significant difference beyond that, regardless of driver qualifications (or maybe those will obtain a proportional discount on premiums).

        Whatever, it's a commercial venture and if it doesn't convince, don't give it your money.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They record you exceeding the Speed Limit by 1 mph

    ... "You were breaking law - you are not covered"

    1. DJ 2
      Joke

      And they will base you premiums on....

      The moment when you lose signal and then recover it 10 mins later, they record that you broke the speed of light by moving instantaneously through the traffic jam.

      1. Timmay
        FAIL

        @ DJ 2

        "lose signal and then recover it 10 mins later, they record that you broke the speed of light by moving instantaneously"

        Umm, 10 minutes or instantaneous, which is it? If you're doing 30mph and lose signal in one place and pick it up 10 minutes later 5 miles away, that's still an average speed of 30mph, not "faster than the speed of light".

        1. Bassey

          Re: Timmay

          "If you're doing 30mph and lose signal in one place and pick it up 10 minutes later 5 miles away, that's still an average speed of 30mph"

          Only if you drove in a perfectly straight line. Where I live, we have corners.

          1. Hnk0
            Boffin

            If you have corners AND drive at 30mph max, then your average over the same time will be LOWER than if you're driving in a straight line.

            Say your drive A to B is 2 miles and 10 min, that's 12mph average (you live in London and there is no traffic). The GPS is borked and thinks you drove in a straight line between A and B, 1 mile in 10 min, average speed 6mph average. Ta-da, no premium to be paid.

            That said I have had my GPS record me running very briefly at 60mph round a track once, so I do hope there is some sanity-checking in place.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Sanity checking?

              Don't be silly. That wouldn't give them t he out that they want.

              "If you have corners AND drive at 30mph max, then your average over the same time will be LOWER than if you're driving in a straight line."

              You mean, I CAN'T go around corners and along a straight at the same speed? My car must be better than I thought, as it manages to go around corners without my lifting off - with nary a squeal of tyres or hairy moments.

          2. Jasper
            FAIL

            oh, that's a beginner's mistake

            Mistaking velocity for speed :)

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Yes, and based on myunderstanding of insurers

        If they can detect you were driving "unsafely" in the 2 seconds before impact (e.g. by braking harshly (FFS!) ) they will instantly un-insure you just before impact so they have an excuse not to pay out,

        1. DJ 2
          Joke

          lose signal at point A.

          gain signal at point B.

          One moment you are at point A, then you are at point B. = distance traveled in 0 time.

          or if it worked by using average speed in a straight line, they would get you for driving over fields, into that local pub on the corner, and across the duck pond.

          joke because that's what it was originally ;)

  4. Velv
    Boffin

    Like all statistical data used by actuaries it will take time to build the data models. Not every driver who drives fast is dangerous. Not every driver who drives smoothly can see properly. It doesn't take account of actual road conditions or driver ability, all factors that can contribute to accidents.

    Overall, this will not "push down" premiums. The overall cost of insurance is likely to remain static. What it will do is shift who pays the higher or lower premiums. Not knocking it - just pointing out that actuaries are only as good as the data.

    It should be interesting for the EU to comment on why premiums based on the statistics of driving style are OK, but premiums based on the statistics of sex (and soon age) are not OK.

    1. Colin Miller
      FAIL

      > It should be interesting for the EU to comment on why premiums based on the statistics of driving style are OK, but premiums based on the statistics of sex (and soon age) are not OK.

      Because you can do something about your driving-style, but it's impossible to do anything about your age, and not many people would want to do something about their sex just to reduce their premiums.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I have a cunning plaaaaan...

      "Like all statistical data used by actuaries it will take time to build the data models."

      Making now the perfect time to get one. If enough people get one fitted and then drive like loons within the law and the statistics will make everyone thereafter look like Mother Theresa.... but alive. Unclassified roads would be ideal for this as they're largely 60mph zones and you'll need to use the brakes and accelerator a lot. Your fuel and tyre consumption will be crap but it would be offset by your insurance a few years down the line.

      In case your wondering, this 'plan' comes from someone who's written off* a Micra in a head on crash on a slimy single track road. It was interesting driving a car with a bent chassis the remaining 5 miles home. Got a stiff neck for a couple of days :|

      *as in a "Your vehicle is worth sod and it will cost slightly more than sod all to fix it so we've written it off" write off.

    3. Mark 65

      @Velv

      Like you say, premiums will not go down. Instead what will happen is that what they deem a safe driver will have their premiums sit where they are (plus the standard 10% increase on renewal) and everyone else's will go up.

    4. Guildencrantz

      @ Velv 16:41

      What's dangerous, Velv, is telling fast drivers they're not always dangerous. It has the effect of making them even more incautious than they already are - and egging on those thinking of driving that way, who aren't already.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ... assuming that they haven't grassed you to the police first

    for doing it.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ... or told the hired hitmen

    ... where to find you

  7. lawndart

    says:

    Will the device know I am driving a Ford Puma and allow for the car's ability to corner with complete safety at a speed that would make a Smart car fall over, and most other cars simply slither into the roadside scenery?

    1. Seanmon
      Thumb Up

      +1

      I do miss my Ford Puma.

    2. Steve Renouf
      FAIL

      That's the exact attitude that's the problem

      How does the "car's ability to corner with complete safety at a speed that would make a Smart car fall over" produce X-ray vision to enable you to see the child crossing the road just around the corner? For example.

      1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

        Steve Renouf, what makes you believe they're talking about a blind corner? There are plenty of corners that can be safely driven at a speed appropriate to the road conditions and the tolerances of the car without the risk of hitting someone, as the corner is not blocking your line of sight. Such corners would easily topple a Smart (or that ugly, top-heavy range rooney everyone seems to be driving nowadays) but which could easily and safely be navigated at much higher speed by other cars.

        1. miknik
          FAIL

          [Citation needed]

          Why would they topple a Smart?

          Do Smarts have any history of toppling? No.

          Did they fail the elk test? No.

          Do you understand the concept of centre of gravity? No.

          Can you see round corners? No, then the corner can block your line of sight.

          1. alexh2o
            Thumb Down

            Smart cars...

            -Short wheelbase

            -Thin tyres

            -High centre of gravity (proportional to length)

            ...equals being able to corner safely at legal speeds, and toppling at more. Pretty simple.

            And there's a corner in a flat open field: can you see round it? Of course you can!

            1. alexh2o
              FAIL

              Wow judging by the voting here, IT professional =/= automotive engineers!

              Showing a very basic lack of understanding about how cars perform, and even just driving, if you fail to see why a Ford Puma can corner safely, faster than a Smart Car. It's not actually worth bothering trying to explain if it isn't just strikingly obvious to you. GCSE Physics? CoG? Moments? Friction? Ringing any bells...

  8. John Robson Silver badge

    Erm - only apply if your premium is already >£1000

    That's what their quote me thingy said.

    Not that I can fathom how the "insurance miles" are calculated / penalised...

    I quite like the idea of pay as you go insurance...

  9. John A Blackley

    yet another little piece of the puzzle

    that will allow interested parties to know where you are and what you are doing at all times.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      yes that was my first thought as well

      The Police alredy have access to number plate auto recognition cameras throughout the road network though. I read a story about some guy that drove around the m25 for 2 days as he was lost, they used number plate recognition cameras to locate him after he wa reported missing.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police-enforced_ANPR_in_the_UK

      I dont really like it but it seems that this is where everything is leading.

      On the safety side of things, whilst driving in the snow the other day, i slid down a hill unable to slow down and only just able to control my direction, the bloody hill had a speed camera at the bottom (30mph limit) and i went through it at about 35/40mph which was terrifying (i think, the spedo was not accurate since i had no traction) I''m pretty sure it flashed although i was concentrating quite hard on not crashing.

      So when the auto generated ticket comes my way i'm probably going to have to pay it and take the points when i suspect a human police officer would probably understand that i had no choice but to go down the hill faster than anyone would have liked.

      1. Keep Refrigerated
        Boffin

        Actually...

        You write back asking for the photographic evidence. When (if) they send it, you examine the visibility of the license plate (was it snowing?), the road markings (used by experts to determine actual speed of travel if in doubt).

        Road markings were covered in snow you say?

        And if you don't feel like arguing the technicalities, you always have the option of appealing to a Magistrate, who is a real person, and will likely take such circumstances into consideration.

        We should never fear appealing to a court, since that is our right. It is there to protect you, not the establishment; it is the last thing that stops the country from slipping into a police state.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    One wonders if the satnav will penalise you

    for blindly obeying its own directions to drive up a dead-end dirt track and off a cliff?

    @MarvinOGBF - having worked for a vehicle tracking outfit, the lengths to which 'professional' drivers will go to to disable the equipment foisted on them by the bullshit middle-managers our bullshit sales teams sold to would intrigue and amaze with their resourcefulness. Knowing exactly which low bridge would wipe out the appropriate antenna whilst leaving the rest of the vehicle unharmed was just one example.

    @Blinken - and since the system is selective in its application they won't have a suitable random data set to base their calculations on, so what the system deems 'safe driving' is purely speculative. That means they'll be struggling to find an underwriter to genuinely offer lower premiums on the basis of anything other than people who think they're safer drivers coming forward.

    1. Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face
      Thumb Up

      When I was a forklift truck driver the method of choice was to pull the fuse on the speed limiter and shove a fag end in the top of the taco needle slot to stop it reading high.

    2. ChaosFreak
      Unhappy

      Punished?

      I think driving off a cliff is a self-punishing activity...

  11. Brent Longborough
    Big Brother

    The Next Step

    What happens when all the insurance companies agree to make this a *compulsory* requirement for insuring you?

    1. g e
      Meh

      They will

      You just know it. Or, charge a massive amount for not doing it.

      Nothing to hide? Nothing to fear.

      It would be nice if one day insurance companies could afford computers that could count into double digits for no claims years, too. Given the premiums they charge you'd think they could support no claims back to the birth of the Universe by now.

      1. peter 45
        Thumb Down

        "insurance companies could afford computers that could count into double digits for no claims years, too."

        Yeh, and managed to sort out the no-claims information they give you at the end of the year and the information they insist on to take out insurance.

        Last insurance company I went with would only give an 'over 5 years' type of information at the end of the year, but their insurance quote form insisted on an exact number of years (and would then only allow 5 years if you got an 'over 5 years' statement.)

        I have not had a claim for over 10 years, but can now only claim 6 because of this .

        1. Vic

          > I have not had a claim for over 10 years, but can now only claim 6 because of this .

          I sometimes wonder about the whole "no claims" thing.

          I had about 15 years accrued without claiming. Strangely, the premium never seemed to go down.

          Then I got rid of my car - I did <1000 miles one year, so it just wasn't worth keeping.

          I bought a van last year. But because it's been more than 2 years since I last had a policy, all my no-claims bonus is gone. I had to start from scratch.

          I'm now driving a much bigger, heavier vehicle from the same manufacturer as my car. I have changed from a SDP policy to a commercial one And I have no NCD. Yet my premium is about the same...

          Vic.

    2. Number6

      Bread and...

      Mysteriously, many of them wouldn't work properly, and the overall reliability of GPS would go down as cheap jamming devices were sold through dodgy retail outlets.

  12. g e

    Errr but

    How does it know if I've taken the car onto a track? Presumably if buffers stuff & sends it to the SatNav next connection, perhaps if the satnav is on then it knows where you are and disregards data.

    Mind you I don't pay anywhere near £1k insurance either, thankfully...

    1. melt
      Pint

      You need a satnav on a track? Who are you, James May?

    2. Colin Miller

      The GPS logger has to cross-reference your location to a road database to determine the speed limit for your current location. If you are on a private road or on a race track, it should have no entry for the speed limit, and thus not penalise you for doing 70+mph.

      Melt - the idea is that once you apply for it, you can not turn the speed recording functionally off, otherwise if you wanted to speed for one journey, you'd just turn it off.

      1. melt

        Colin - it was a joke.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @The Next Step

    It won't be the Insurance Companies that demand it - it will be the Government that does.

    1. g e

      Yeah

      On the back of an Insurance Organisation lobby

  14. Pondule

    Going slowly in th wrong lane

    Is it going to notice someone going slowly in the outside lane with a queue of cars zooming past on the inside with the drivers blaring their horns and shaking their fists?

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But will it be able to determine who's driving?

    e.g. (ex-) partners of (ex-) Cabinet Ministers or their partners?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      In car cameras

      Insurance companies also like those.

      Wouldn't surprise me if a spike came out of the seat and drew blood each time you get in to dna check the driver.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Fair Pay" My Ar e!

    Its just another way these insurance companies can charge us higher premiums.

    If you think otherwise, you'll understand as you age and gain some wisdom.

    This should be made illegal now and stop the discrimination that it will lead to.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Obviously!

      I don't drive or work in insurance so I don't have a lot to do with this particular area of life - can you expand on your previous post for the benefit of the ignorant?

      What discrimination will result?

      1. Mark 65

        @AC

        What I think the OP is getting at is that everyone will pay higher insurance and those without such a device will pay higher still due to lobbying/bullshit practices whereby it's claimed to "make the roads safer" and/or "lead to more effective calculation of premiums". It's all bullshit, they just want to rob you blind - home and car/vehicle owners are just sitting ducks.

  17. Shardik
    FAIL

    Push down premiums? Nah, this will INCREASE premiums to all those people who don't want to be snooped on 24/7 by a GPS device designed to provide a superficial risk assessment based on faulty assumptions?

    Seriously... When was the last time an insurance company pushed DOWN premiums? Who believes this stuff?

  18. Darren Coleman
    Stop

    Great idea in principal

    ...but as stated already in practice there are far more metrics than just how fast you travel and how harshly you corner and brake.

    There are many very capable drivers who drive in a spirited manner (i.e. not necessarily adhering to every speed limit). Likewise there are some ridiculously unobservant drivers who routinely drive below the limits.

    The above said any step towards more granular assessments (the roads you travel on and times of day you travel are significant) is a good thing really. I'd be interested to know how you pay for this sort of premium - is it calculated monthly with rises and decreases according to your driving style over the course of that month? Are you penalised for driving in colder weather? Is it fully itemised so you can see what contributed towards a price rise/decrease?

    If they just say "this is how much your premium is" then that's not good enough in my opinion, especially if they're basing it upon data which you've given to them willingly.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    " "LIVE services". The latter will alert the motorist to upcoming traffic issues (presumably to stop them slamming into the back of a long queue that has formed)."

    Any driver who needs a box to tell them that a Q of traffic is ahead of them shouldn't be on the roads! 10 Years of driving and I've never needed one.

    Mind you, watching the numpty drivers in England today, at least 1/2 of them need one!

    1. Steve Renouf
      Thumb Up

      Couldn't agree more

      It's amazing how many drivers don't grasp the fact that your distance of vision needs to be greater than your stopping distance!

    2. Mark 65

      Telling you there's a queue of traffic on the motorway before you pass the last exit preceding said queue is somewhat useful.

  20. jubtastic1
    Stop

    A claim you say? I'm sorry, it seems your policy has been voided.

    "a week ago, due to [petty offence] you would have been notified when our system got round to it"

    Funny story, my sister brings her fella, an insurance broker, around for dinner and he tells a tale; a distraught woman has phoned him, squirrel has got into her lounge and torn the place up while the family has tried to get it out, curtains and sofa are ruined, so he's making sympathetic noises to her and offhandly asks what colour it was, "grey" says she, "vermin" says he, "you're not covered" LOLs from him, silence from the rest of us. Wanker.

    1. peter 45
      Big Brother

      Claims assessors are even worse

      Once knew a Claims Assessor and he described his job as a Claims Prevention Officer.

      Does not matter that the Insurance companies say their job is to 'assist' the Claimant to make a 'fair' claim, 'cos his job was basically to find any excuse possible to disallow or reduce the claim. He got bonuses based on the difference between the claimants claim and the final payout.

      Claim assessor come to your house to 'help you assess the damage' ? Don't make me laugh. His job is to poke into all corners of the house, damaged or not, noting ALL the content's value 'cos if the value is higher than the insured limit, it gets reduced and he get a bonus. Even though you are claiming for damage and not theft, he will check the security of your windows. If it isn't the same as stated on the insurance form, claim will be rejected.

      It is the householder responsibility to fill the form in accurately, but be under no illusions what a Claim Assessor is there to do when the insurance company sends him round to 'help you'.

      1. Vic

        > his job was basically to find any excuse possible

        They're all at it.

        Each year, a bunch of us go skiing. Last year, we booked a holiday with a guy that ended up being a right shyster[1].

        But that wasn't really a problem - he was a member of an travel agent association. He had a bond. We'd get our money back.

        But the bond is basically an insurance policy. And although he had a certificate of insurance (which he presented to the association on joining), the insurance company underwriting it have now decided that he didn't tell them something[2] pertinent, so they have voided his policy "ab initio". That certificate is worthless...

        I smell court time...

        Vic.

        [1] If you saw articles on the telly about some guy leaving school parties stranded around the world - yes, it's him.

        [2] They won't tell us what.

      2. despairing citizen
        Unhappy

        Re: Claims Prevention Officer.

        Not all insurance companies operate the same way.

        Claims Management done right is about preventing fraud, and a number of companies have made ex-gratia payments in the past, even when the policy has been clearly breached. (the unqualified idiot maintained his own brakes, and they subsequently didn't work)

        At the other end of the scale of claims management is CLAIMS EVASION, this ranges from "sharp business practice" through to outright fraud by the insurer. (if you want to see this in action look at the FSO web site for legal expense cover claims)

        so when you buy your "cheap" car insurance, you have to ask yourself, why is it cheap?, could it be the insurer has no intention of paying up on claims?

        as usual if the offer is too good to by true, it probably is.

  21. JimmyPage Silver badge

    As others have said not "push down" but "redistibute"

    premiums.

    What will happen is that safer (well, lower risk) drivers will get lower premiums, as younger, or convicted (drunks and skunks as we call them in the industry) drivers have their premium raised even more (because this is how insurance works). Which will give them more of an incentive to drive around without insurance ...

    Personally, I would have no problem with much more draconian penalties (forfeiture of car, for a start) against uninsured drivers. The problem is that "the man" needs as many people to be able to drive as possible, or he wouldn't be able to have such low wages.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's not the first

    Have a look at coverbox.co.uk

    They come and fit a gps box to your engine and bill you according to speed, distance, how quickly you accelerate/corner etc and offer you a cheap initial quote.

    Then have a search for complaints and you find pages of people complaining the person fitting the box broke their car, the company refuses liability, customer service being non-existent and most telling - people being overcharged because the box says so. I wouldn't go near any kind of service like this.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      ODBII

      These boxes presumably just plug into OBDII ports. Aside from possibly breaking the little plastic cover for the ports there is no way to mess it up. It'd be like saying somebody broke your computer by plugging a USB device in wrong. Unlikely.

      1. Chloe Cresswell Silver badge

        I'll have one then! My car has an ODBII shaped port, but it doesn't talk ODBII/EuroODB.

        1. Anomalous Cowturd
          Meh

          So does mine..

          And it doesn't speak OBDese either. :o(

          It even says OBDII on the plastic cover.

          Anybody want to buy a bluetooth OBDII adaptor. Comes with driver disk and a jiffy bag! ;o)

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        'Presumably' would be wrong, the tracker boxes I've seen being fitted have to be wired into the car's power and rely on GPS for speed etc. I would guess that cornering and braking would be measured by an accelerometer.

        FWIW, the company that fitted 10 boxes to the company fleet as a trial managed to fuck up two cars, one car spent a week in a dealership and got the company a rather large bill, the other only too a day to fix.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Can't wait

    I will bet money that staying within the speed limit and keeping the G forces down has no impact on driver safety. Maybe negative impact.

    My theory is that the people who drive fast and corner hard are the ones who are interested in cars and excited about driving and pay more attention and do a better job of it.

    Meanwhile I suspect the people who meander about below the speed limit are more oblivious and crash-prone.

    I downloaded the State Farm driver safety app for my iPhone last year and was able to rack up over 20 "potentially dangerous" cases of hard acceleration/braking/cornering in a 5 mile stretch while being in absolutely no danger. Also--I've never had an accident in my life.

    Can't wait to see how the statistics work out for this one...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Well that's a tremendously well researched and convincingly argued case you've put together there; can't wait to see their faces when they realise what fools they have been.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Well, if I was reporting a well-researched fact then I wouldn't call it a theory and say I'd bet money on it, would I?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          AC vs AC

          I don't know why, but there's something vaguely surreal about the sight of two ACs getting shirty with eachother.

    2. Mark 65

      @AC

      "My theory is that the people who drive fast and corner hard are the ones who are interested in cars and excited about driving and pay more attention and do a better job of it."

      My theory is that the people who drive fast and corner hard are a fucking liability and a danger to other road users. They are also likely to be rat-boys driving cars that look like they've been covered in superglue and driven through Halfords. Fast driving and hard cornering belongs on a track. You want to do it then pay and enjoy yourself - just don't think that road tax entitles you to use the public highway as such.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Mark 65

        That's it, be insulting in a debate when you obviously don't have a clue.

        Driving fast and cornering hard does NOT mean that someone is a liability, fucking or otherwise.

        Nor does it mean that the car is being driven badly or dangerously, but then don't let your prejudices hold you back.

        "Rat-boys (whatever they are) driving cars covered in super-glue......"

        Methinks you have been sniffing too much of the substance yourself. It has addled your logical thinking.

        Have you not heard of cars capable of going around corners safely fairly fast, without needing to be on a track?

        Funnily enough, most modern cars will do that - even if some of the drivers are incapable of it, and it's called normal driving.

        Perhaps you fit into that category of citizen who considers that anyone driving slightly faster than them is a liability?

    3. Hnk0

      My theory is that you're a prick, substantiated by the fact that you have theory that panders uniquely to your prejudices while having no data to back it up. There is a reason your insurance premium goes up when you are caught speeding on the public highway, and it's not only because insurers love money. Get on a track.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        > My theory is that the people who drive fast and corner hard are a fucking liability and a danger to other road users.

        Let's say I'm first in line at a red light and it puts a smile on my face to press the pedal a little harder than average when the light turns green. No tires losing traction and there's literally nobody in front of me to have an accident with. Yet the State Farm app would call it a "potentially dangerous" event and you're calling me a danger to others. Yeah, sure.

        > My theory is that you're a prick, substantiated by the fact that you have theory that panders uniquely to your prejudices while having no data to back it up.

        Eh? That's how science works, for one. People have theories and THEN run experiments to test them. What world do you live in where people have theories only when the data already exists to confirm them?

  24. Tom Wood

    Will it do anything to detect whether in an accident there really was any chance of whiplash?

    Because it's spurious whiplash claims and dodgy claims management firms that are really making insurance so expensive, not dangerous driving per se.

  25. I_am_Chris

    Increasing other people's premiums more like

    I can see this as a way for insurance companies to penalise drivers who *don't* use the system.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Naturally. The same as will happen with "smart" 'leccy meters. It's a "choice", but if you choose not to have one, it will (eventually) become more expensive to exercise your choice to say no.

      It's called the "free market". But that only applies to companies, not consumers. Why else would MS put up the UK price of windows to European levels? instead of banning sales of UK versions to the EU (oops, can't do that). But they can ban sales of even cheaper Windows from the US or Thailand.

      It's all part of the same system to fleece consumers while creating artificial demand. But it's all for our benefit, ie safety/economy/fairness for all. Oh, and they are, of course THINKING OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!! Only a rabid baby killer would ever object.

  26. NomNomNom

    How can this possibly be safe? What if it gets cloudy and the satellite link is lost? Does the car just career out of control until it hits something? If anything if I was an insurance company I would charge more insurance for GPS controlled cars because they will be crashing all the time. It's staggering that they could even think of this idea. I bet this is in the Daily Mail tomorrow.

    1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge
      Alien

      Re "GPS controlled cars"

      You either want the "Joke" icon or the "I didn't read the post" icon. I can't decide which.

  27. despairing citizen
    Stop

    I smell marketing rather than actuaries behind the idea

    The insurance premium is based on a predictive risk assesment (i.e. %chance of having an accident in the next 12 months multiplied by sum at risk)

    therefore the data being collected after the initial underwriting is not that useful, and this data would appear to be only marginally influential on determining the risk, given all the limitations involved.

    a more accurate way to create a driver specific premium, would be to demand a current eye test, as 1 in 4 drivers are driving with uncorrected defective eye sight.

    given the maths, logic and cost involved, I suspect marketing gimick rather than an actuary (i.e. evidence) led method of personalising premiums

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    That tech already existed...

    ... a couple of years ago, sans navscreen. The tracking and phoning home ("in certain conditions") and everything was there, though. I know at least one company made such a thing though it went tits-up in the meantime. Then again it was a start-up and didn't have the resources tomtom still has, despite their dwindling income, as selling premium satnav devices gets harder when everybody already has one.

    So what happens next, besides the risk of prohibitively high insurance unless you "volunteer" for this? Possibly governmental tracking for billing-by-the-mile and later automated speeding tickets too. Eventually the thing might get a direct reporting feed to the now-not-just-ANPR-any-longer database. Perhaps plenty of overly curious people figuring out how to fool the thing, too. We'll see.

  29. SteveK

    Not cheap.

    Given that it seems from the FAQ that they add £300 to the premium to cover the cost of the Tomtom, it's certainly not going to be cheap.

  30. Stuck-Record

    Norwich Union used to offer insurance where they fitted a hidden GPS to the car which calculated your insurance based on how much you drove on certain roads. It was (with one tiny technical issue*) absolutely brilliant. My insurance, as a London driver was, get this, £110 per year!

    For 'some reason' they stopped the scheme and dumped me into a normal insurance policy where every year since, regardless of provider, the premium has been £350 pa.

    *The 'issue' was the devices were prone to low level drain of the car's battery if wired incorrectly.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The pay-as-you-drive scheme wasn't as popular as expected so the idea was canned.

  31. Winty
    Stop

    This is a horrible idea.

    For a while now, some insurance companies have been passing contact details to lawyers in the event of an accident for a fee...

    What if they try to sell details of your driving habits\location to anyone who will pay? Imagine it...

    Parked at Tesco's for 30 minutes? Get texts pointing out how much cheaper a rival is.

    Old car stuck in a garage for a few weeks? Expect a call from a local car showroom.

    Park or drive slowly through a red light district? You get spammed with porn sites.

    Seems far-fetched now, but I suspect some insurance companies are thinking about it.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Space Merchants - Frederick Pohl.

      It's intended as a warning, but the free market seem to think it's a manual.

    2. The Original Cactus

      Marketting

      That was my thought as I read the artilce too. I can't see TomTom making money from the 'personalised' underwriting. Selling the location and driving habits data on the other hand...

  32. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    For some time I've been considering taking a bit of a risk and going for minimum legal cover, then saving what I would have had to pay, as my personal 'insurance'. This might just be the tipping point.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I always go for minimum legal cover...

      ....on the grounds that in the event of a serious accident and things aren't going well from a settlement point of view then I'm probably more likely to be wanting to sue my own useless bunch of insurance tossers than the other person's.

    2. Vic

      > going for minimum legal cover

      Only ever get the TPFT quote as a *second* quote.

      There is some actuarial data to show that those going for such cover are cheapskating on everything - and are a statistically higher risk. It is, apparently, possible to get a higher TPFT quote than a fully-comp one.

      The last few times I've enquired, there has been about a fiver difference between the two quotes.

      Vic.

  33. Jean-Luc
    Paris Hilton

    Lower premiums? Of course.

    Considering we _all_ know we drive more safely than "the other guys".

    Safe driving? We need Lindsay Lohan for this one, not a Paris Hilton icon.

  34. Zog The Undeniable
    Mushroom

    Actually, insurance companies aren't ripping you off

    Nearly all of them have lost money on motor business* for several years, because people drive like muppets. Want to know why premiums are £3,000-4,000 for a 17-year old boy? Because the claims experience shows that he is probably going to crash, and crash hard, in his first year.

    Anecdotes: a work colleague's son got a car at 17. I suggested this was unwise as he was going to write it off as soon as he got out alone with his mates. No, he's a sensible boy, I was told. It actually took 6 weeks to write it off, fortunately with no-one seriously injured. Also, a friend of mine at 6th form wrote off three cars in his first year of driving.

    I don't work for an insurance company, before you ask, but 25 years of driving and cycling in Britain makes me realise that many people really shouldn't be allowed on the roads.

    *I asusme they cross-subsidise from home insurance etc to keep afloat

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why is this 'new' exactly?

    I can remember some insurance company several years ago offering heavy discounts if you had one of their special spy boxes in your car. Nobody bought it then.

    This is the same stunt but I guess it's 'new' because it's a name company this time making the boxes.

  36. sleepy_chicken

    Good Scheme

    Although this approach is not new, the co-op offer an excellent scheme aimed at young drivers. My son (17) passed his test in November and got a quote the same day for £800 (covering me, the mrs and him - I'm the lead driver).

    The premium is reviewed every 90 days based upon speed, cornering, braking, road types and (crucially) time of day - they really frown upon driving between 11:00pm and 6:00am.

    Just received our first email stating that we are due a refund on the premium because the recorded driving parameters meet with their approval. This is without doubt the most affordable method of motoring for young drivers and I take satisfaction from the fact that my son knows he has a spy in the cab!

  37. AbortRetryFail

    @sleepy_chicken

    sleepy_chicken - I sincerely hope you *are* the main driver and aren't "fronting"

    1. sleepy_chicken

      We are a two car family and I drive the car to work every day! Can't be fairer than that - don't assume everyone is dishonest!

  38. Bill Michaelson
    Pint

    Statisitcs measure what statistics measure

    So now part of the risk calculation will be shifted to a set of factors that the driver can more easily game. Convenient for some. Annoying for others.

  39. ChaosFreak

    Craig's List Post

    Wanted: Extremely safe driver to carry my insurance company satnav around in their car as they drive oh-so-safely. Will split the insurance savings with you.

  40. Iain Leadley
    Thumb Down

    So if you crash your car because you were looking at the screen to see how safe you were driving will that be OK?

    What a load of tosh, driving too close or with bald tyres means driving at half the speed limit and slowly round corners is dangerous.

    There should be a chimp icon as this idea came from one.

This topic is closed for new posts.